Take the money for Sanchez. City will have an even bigger problem than us fitting him into their team thus causing chaos that will benefit us.

Sell Ox as in all the years we've had him he has rarely strung a number of good games together. Possibly not his fault but we have several replacements for his position just as good as he is.

What problem did we have fitting Sanchez into our team? He played on the left and centrally, and did very well in both positions. Also, who are the "several replacements for his position just as good" as Chamberlain? What are you counting as his position anyway? I accept the validity of your view that he hasn't had lengthy spells of good form. However, he has had some fine games at central, left and right midfield, as well as right wing back. One of his strengths is his adaptability and unless I've forgotten somebody then off hand I can't think of anyone already in the squad who could do as well covering those areas of the pitch as him.

Having said that I do agree, as I made obvious above, that we should sell both rather than lose them on Bosmans next summer. But I'm not going to pretend it's impossible their departures might not have serious problems with regards replacing them adequately. Hopefully Wenger can do it, but I've no longer got the faith in him that I used to have.

Take the money for Sanchez. City will have an even bigger problem than us fitting him into their team thus causing chaos that will benefit us.

Sell Ox as in all the years we've had him he has rarely strung a number of good games together. Possibly not his fault but we have several replacements for his position just as good as he is.

So who do you rank as good as the Ox currently at the club. I dont for one moment think he is great but I suspect another manáger may well work with improving him substantially. However I do not believe we have players at the club who are currently good enough.

By the way 25 days until our first match.

_________________If this policy does not deliver then I would say we have to change it. AW 150810

So who do you rank as good as the Ox currently at the club. I dont for one moment think he is great but I suspect another manáger may well work with improving him substantially. However I do not believe we have players at the club who are currently good enough.

I think it's reasonable to suggest other managers might get more out of Chamberlain than Wenger has. If self-improvement as a player is a significant part of his motivation, as one would hope it is, I can understand why he might think moving on could be beneficial.

Take the money for Sanchez. City will have an even bigger problem than us fitting him into their team thus causing chaos that will benefit us.

Sell Ox as in all the years we've had him he has rarely strung a number of good games together. Possibly not his fault but we have several replacements for his position just as good as he is.

What problem did we have fitting Sanchez into our team? He played on the left and centrally, and did very well in both positions. Also, who are the "several replacements for his position just as good" as Chamberlain? What are you counting as his position anyway? I accept the validity of your view that he hasn't had lengthy spells of good form. However, he has had some fine games at central, left and right midfield, as well as right wing back. One of his strengths is his adaptability and unless I've forgotten somebody then off hand I can't think of anyone already in the squad who could do as well covering those areas of the pitch as him.

Having said that I do agree, as I made obvious above, that we should sell both rather than lose them on Bosmans next summer. But I'm not going to pretend it's impossible their departures might not have serious problems with regards replacing them adequately. Hopefully Wenger can do it, but I've no longer got the faith in him that I used to have.

With regards Sanchez I wasn't referring to his position in the team but his influence on the team especially since he started his childish antics. As a player I agree there aren't many better but do we need a winger or a striker afaic as a winger he wasn't all that but as a striker he was untouchable.

Assuming AW sticks to a back 3 which I think he will Chamberlain on the left, I prefer Monreal orIwobi on the right I prefer Ballerin or Walcott. Pray tell me why you consider we should keep Chamberlain, do you expect him to improve? We need to blood Maitland-Niles and a couple of others so afaic he is surplus to demand.

Take the money for Sanchez. City will have an even bigger problem than us fitting him into their team thus causing chaos that will benefit us.

Sell Ox as in all the years we've had him he has rarely strung a number of good games together. Possibly not his fault but we have several replacements for his position just as good as he is.

Selling City our only worldclass player for less than his market value is madness, allowing him to join in a years time for free is even more crazy unless we can afford to lose the money. We are basically stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Imagine us getting Aguero for <£50m, we'd be jumping for joy.

It's a right mess with all these players entering the last year of their contracts. It may well be a damage limitation exercise now.

With regards Sanchez I wasn't referring to his position in the team but his influence on the team especially since he started his childish antics. As a player I agree there aren't many better but do we need a winger or a striker afaic as a winger he wasn't all that but as a striker he was untouchable.

Assuming AW sticks to a back 3 which I think he will Chamberlain on the left, I prefer Monreal orIwobi on the right I prefer Ballerin or Walcott. Pray tell me why you consider we should keep Chamberlain, do you expect him to improve? We need to blood Maitland-Niles and a couple of others so afaic he is surplus to demand.

Sorry, but on the left Sanchez was all that. He spent the majority of his time at Arsenal on the left and has been a terrific player. I'd rather Chamberlain than Walcott, and I think we should keep him because of his adaptability. It won't be easy to find a player who can cover right midfield, left midfield, central midfield and right wing back as well as him. The idea that Maitland-Niles could do it straight away looks over-optimistic in the extreme, to me. The latter can be given chances, whether or not Chamberlain stays.

Mid June and all the gossip is about Sanchez and Chamberlain leaving, while we've signed a defender. Not a dickie bird about Özil.I hope Wenger, Law and Gazidis are working hard to sort some signings out, as we were promised change but so far it's all been depressingly predictable.

The London Live channel is currently showing The Arsenal Stadium Mystery, a murder whodunnit movie made in the late thirties. To be honest, I didn't really get into it from the bit I saw. But I did look up what Wikipedia says about the film.

The start of the second paragraph on Wikipedia says "The film is a murder mystery set, as the title suggests, at the Arsenal Stadium, Highbury, London, then the home of Arsenal Football Club, who were at the time one of the dominant teams in English football." Am I right in thinking that implies Wikipedia no longer consider Arsenal one of the dominant teams in English football? Oh dear, are we in such decline that an independent online encyclopedia no longer considers Arsenal as even 'one of' the dominant football clubs in the country?

The London Live channel is currently showing The Arsenal Stadium Mystery, a murder whodunnit movie made in the late thirties. To be honest, I didn't really get into it from the bit I saw. But I did look up what Wikipedia says about the film.

The start of the second paragraph on Wikipedia says "The film is a murder mystery set, as the title suggests, at the Arsenal Stadium, Highbury, London, then the home of Arsenal Football Club, who were at the time one of the dominant teams in English football." Am I right in thinking that implies Wikipedia no longer consider Arsenal one of the dominant teams in English football? Oh dear, are we in such decline that an independent online encyclopedia no longer considers Arsenal as even 'one of' the dominant football clubs in the country?

Everybody knows you can't trust Wikipedia, but to be fair that comment is right. We have not been one of the dominant teams in English football since the period 1998-2005. We do win the FA Cup a fair amount though. So, Wiki's words are nothing to do with decline, just an accurate statement.

_________________"Young and caught up in life, we seldom watched the skies.”

Take the money for Sanchez. City will have an even bigger problem than us fitting him into their team thus causing chaos that will benefit us.

Sell Ox as in all the years we've had him he has rarely strung a number of good games together. Possibly not his fault but we have several replacements for his position just as good as he is.

Selling City our only worldclass player for less than his market value is madness, allowing him to join in a years time for free is even more crazy unless we can afford to lose the money. We are basically stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Imagine us getting Aguero for <£50m, we'd be jumping for joy.

It's a right mess with all these players entering the last year of their contracts. It may well be a damage limitation exercise now.

Lift your chin off your chest! Don't worry - we'll sell Sanchez, Ox and any other semi-detachee and use the money to buy Ronaldo. Simple. Win the quadruple next season; Wenger manager of the year; England win The Ashes and Continuity Corbyn takes over at Number 10.

_________________"Young and caught up in life, we seldom watched the skies.”

The London Live channel is currently showing The Arsenal Stadium Mystery, a murder whodunnit movie made in the late thirties. To be honest, I didn't really get into it from the bit I saw. But I did look up what Wikipedia says about the film.

The start of the second paragraph on Wikipedia says "The film is a murder mystery set, as the title suggests, at the Arsenal Stadium, Highbury, London, then the home of Arsenal Football Club, who were at the time one of the dominant teams in English football." Am I right in thinking that implies Wikipedia no longer consider Arsenal one of the dominant teams in English football? Oh dear, are we in such decline that an independent online encyclopedia no longer considers Arsenal as even 'one of' the dominant football clubs in the country?

Everybody knows you can't trust Wikipedia, but to be fair that comment is right. We have not been one of the dominant teams in English football since the period 1998-2005. We do win the FA Cup a fair amount though. So, Wiki's words are nothing to do with decline, just an accurate statement.

Sorry but periods of not being one of the best teams does not, in my view, stop a club from being one of the dominant forces. I think Liverpool still warrant being seen as such, as did Manchester United pre-Ferguson and still now post-Ferguson. If Wikipedia is right and Arsenal are genuinely not one of the dominant forces, then I see that as a decline. Moreover, I see it as a reason to get rid of the person or people responsible for that decline. If that is one of Wenger or Kroenke, I'd like to see the back of the guilty party. If it's both of them together, which personally I believe it is, I hope they both bugger off.

I accept Wikipedia said team, not club or force. But would they imply Manchester United are no longer one of the dominant teams? I doubt it, despite their disappointing run in the league since Ferguson left. That's because, my guess would be, they still perceive them as one of the biggest or dominant clubs, with the same thing applying to Liverpool even though they haven't won the league for donkey's years. But they said it about Arsenal, and I do think a possible reason is what they perceive as our decline as a club.

Everybody knows you can't trust Wikipedia, but to be fair that comment is right. We have not been one of the dominant teams in English football since the period 1998-2005. We do win the FA Cup a fair amount though. So, Wiki's words are nothing to do with decline, just an accurate statement.

Sorry but periods of not being one of the best teams does not, in my view, stop a club from being one of the dominant forces. I think Liverpool still warrant being seen as such, as did Manchester United pre-Ferguson and still now post-Ferguson. If Wikipedia is right and Arsenal are genuinely not one of the dominant forces, then I see that as a decline. Moreover, I see it as a reason to get rid of the person or people responsible for that decline. If that is one of Wenger or Kroenke, I'd like to see the back of the guilty party. If it's both of them together, which personally I believe it is, I hope they both bugger off.

I accept Wikipedia said team, not club or force. But would they imply Manchester United are no longer one of the dominant teams? I doubt it, despite their disappointing run in the league since Ferguson left. That's because, my guess would be, they still perceive them as one of the biggest or dominant clubs, with the same thing applying to Liverpool even though they haven't won the league for donkey's years. But they said it about Arsenal, and I do think a possible reason is what they perceive as our decline as a club.

You sure do read a lot into a few lines about a 1930s film written on an online 'encyclopaedia' that anyone can contribute to! And if Liverpool are currently a dominant team/force/club then the meaning of the word has changed beyond all recognition.

Time to take the anti-Wenger/Kroenke pot off the oven - you'll burn the stew.

_________________"Young and caught up in life, we seldom watched the skies.”

And if Liverpool are currently a dominant team/force/club then the meaning of the word has changed beyond all recognition.

Time to take the anti-Wenger/Kroenke pot off the oven - you'll burn the stew.

Liverpool are a huge club though. Look at the size of their fan base. Is it only about the state of the current team for you? If so, how many years of having an under-performing team does it take for you to downgrade a club? Because it only took some three or four years, maybe five, of Abramovich's ownership (I'm pretty sure it wasn't that long after Cole's departure because that was a justification you used) for you to declare Chelsea as a bigger, and presumably thus more dominant, club than Arsenal.

By the way I'll keep going about Kroenke and Wenger because they're the people I see as primarily responsible for Arsenal's current problems.

They're still the second biggest club in England though. As I asked hoy, are you only seeing the word 'dominant' as relevant to the quality of the current team?

Not just the current team. All they have won in the last decade is a single League Cup. They haven't won the league in 27 years.

But hoy said Wikipedia were correct in not calling Arsenal dominant by whatever measure they were using. I was surprised. I think Arsenal and Liverpool both should be. If they're not, it represents a decline that needs to be sorted out, although I don't care if Liverpool fail to sort themselves out.

Not just the current team. All they have won in the last decade is a single League Cup. They haven't won the league in 27 years.

But hoy said Wikipedia were correct in not calling Arsenal dominant by whatever measure they were using. I was surprised. I think Arsenal and Liverpool both should be. If they're not, it represents a decline that needs to be sorted out, although I don't care if Liverpool fail to sort themselves out.

Both Arsenal and Liverpool have gone into decline. There is no doubt about that. Liverpool's fall is considerably greater.

How does a blue-eyed, blond lad with a Scottish surname get to play for the Maoris?

yes it is a bit of mystery Dec ...they mention Ngati Tuwheretoa bloodlines which seems a bit vague instead of saying his grandmother was Maori . http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... d=11482487His trial at first five eight was a bit of a disaster , he is a very potent player for the Chiefs at full back

Ruminating on the subject ; vaguely remember a mate of mine [ now dead ] mentioning he had a Maori mother and you'd never have guessed .

We are looking good in the America's Cup but there is a five day lay over ; so time for Larry Ellison to fly in every yachting expert on the planet , build a new boat , spend two billion dollars in chump change , arrange a three day rap concert outside the Kiwi hotel ...... all to massage his enormous ego .... he's worse than Kroenke

The American connection is exactly as my friend from Townsville says .... you couldn't get a more graphic example of penalising people without due cause than the way white Americans treated African Americans .

Unfortunately a bleedin awful analogy.

Why ..... on reflection I'm at a total loss as to the hysteria surrounding that comment .

It is not as if I've called anyone a n******ger .

"The KKK liked nothing better than to lynch a few n********gers ........." ISIS likes nothing better than to behead a few infidels " ?

But hoy said Wikipedia were correct in not calling Arsenal dominant by whatever measure they were using. I was surprised. I think Arsenal and Liverpool both should be. If they're not, it represents a decline that needs to be sorted out, although I don't care if Liverpool fail to sort themselves out.

Both Arsenal and Liverpool have gone into decline. There is no doubt about that. Liverpool's fall is considerably greater.

Yes I would agree that they've gone into decline. I couldn't care less about Liverpool, but that's why I would like to see the back of those responsible for Arsenal's decline. I see that as both Wenger and Kroenke. Who else is there? But size wise, I believe they should both be domineering clubs.

The London Live channel is currently showing The Arsenal Stadium Mystery, a murder whodunnit movie made in the late thirties. To be honest, I didn't really get into it from the bit I saw. But I did look up what Wikipedia says about the film.

The start of the second paragraph on Wikipedia says "The film is a murder mystery set, as the title suggests, at the Arsenal Stadium, Highbury, London, then the home of Arsenal Football Club, who were at the time one of the dominant teams in English football." Am I right in thinking that implies Wikipedia no longer consider Arsenal one of the dominant teams in English football? Oh dear, are we in such decline that an independent online encyclopedia no longer considers Arsenal as even 'one of' the dominant football clubs in the country?

A multitude of equations can be used here .... you could pitch your argument either way . I don't see any problem with their wording we were dominant then , A Sahara desert from '53 to 71 .... the Gobi desert from 72 to 89 except for the oasis of 1979 .Are we a dominant now ...not really but then again it depends how many teams can be fitted into the dominant equation .1990s we were now the mantle can be held by Man U , City , Chelsea

If we hadn't beaten Chelsea we definetely wouldn't qualify .

All manner of criteria can be cobbled up to fit any dominace discussion ...fan base , buying power , stadium size , recent success , type of trophies won , history .

And if Liverpool are currently a dominant team/force/club then the meaning of the word has changed beyond all recognition.

Time to take the anti-Wenger/Kroenke pot off the oven - you'll burn the stew.

Liverpool are a huge club though. Look at the size of their fan base. Is it only about the state of the current team for you? If so, how many years of having an under-performing team does it take for you to downgrade a club? Because it only took some three or four years, maybe five, of Abramovich's ownership (I'm pretty sure it wasn't that long after Cole's departure because that was a justification you used) for you to declare Chelsea as a bigger, and presumably thus more dominant, club than Arsenal.

By the way I'll keep going about Kroenke and Wenger because they're the people I see as primarily responsible for Arsenal's current problems.

Typically you've moved the goalposts. Of course Liverpool are a huge club but they are not dominant, which was where you started with a tenuous reading of the content of a Wikipedia film article! In defining dominance in football there is only one measure that would mean anything to 99.9% of people i.e. great, even overwhelming success on the pitch. Size of fan base, history, income generated may be of interest but do not equal dominance.

As for Chelsea and Arsenal for well over a decade there is no argument that the Blues are the more dominant team in terms of their general success, meeasured by trophies, and their record in games between the two sides. Regrettably they are now the bigger club too. Fuelled of course by rotten money.

_________________"Young and caught up in life, we seldom watched the skies.”

Not just the current team. All they have won in the last decade is a single League Cup. They haven't won the league in 27 years.

But hoy said Wikipedia were correct in not calling Arsenal dominant by whatever measure they were using. I was surprised. I think Arsenal and Liverpool both should be. If they're not, it represents a decline that needs to be sorted out, although I don't care if Liverpool fail to sort themselves out.

No! You are getting your wires crossed. I agreed with the Wiki comment that Arsenal were one of the dominant teams in the 30s, and as has been pointed by McQ that is an understatement because at that time we were the dominant team - nobody else came close.

_________________"Young and caught up in life, we seldom watched the skies.”

Why ..... on reflection I'm at a total loss as to the hysteria surrounding that comment .

It is not as if I've called anyone a n******ger .

"The KKK liked nothing better than to lynch a few n********gers ........." ISIS likes nothing better than to behead a few infidels " ?

Kiwi - no one has been at all hysterical in pointing out that the use of that word on here is out of order. You surely can't be at a total loss as to why there have been objections. To carry on repeating it is shameful.

_________________"Young and caught up in life, we seldom watched the skies.”

Let me try and make my position clearer on the debate. I started off undecided about some aspects of it. But overall I think Arsenal have declined in recent years, so on that I'm certainly more in agreement with dec as unless I misread it, hoy wanted to avoid associating Arsenal's non-dominance, or lack of dominance, with a decline. That's how I took his comment "Wiki's words are nothing to do with decline, just an accurate statement." I can't help wondering if he did that to not open Wenger up to any blame, although only he knows the answer to that and I might be wrong.

However, I do believe Arsenal is easily a big enough club, and as kiwi pointed out there are various factors that contribute to how big a club is, to be one of the dominant forces in English football. Therefore, if we are falling short of that I'd suggest we are underachieving, which was the reason I brought up wanting to see the back of both Wenger and Kroenke, which hoy made reference to.

What I will say is that I don't think a country need only have a single dominant club, even when over periods one club has had more success than another or others. Scotland have traditionally had Rangers and Celtic; Spain have had Real Madrid and Barcelona; Italy has had Juventus, AC Milan and Inter; while England have traditionally had Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal. But it's also a changeable list, and I'd accept Chelsea are now a dominant force in English football. If they've replaced Arsenal rather than added themselves to the list, it's what I find disappointing. Maybe Liverpool have fallen off the list as well? If they have I would make the same point about them as I did Arsenal. They are easily a big enough club to be one of England's dominant forces. Have City joined it yet?

You know it is summer when people are arguing over the meaning of the wording used in an encyclopaedia that babu edits.

I'm sure you must have seen the film. What do you think of it? Allison had a talking part in it.

As a film it is nothing amazing but a good solid detective movie of the age - really it is the clips of Arsenal that make it special otherwise it may have been forgotten, like many films of that period.

The book was rather popular going into various re-prints (then slightly re-written to include post-war players and released as Arsenal Stadium Mystery - the Replay). There was a Guild Services version for soldiers during the war and it was also reprinted in both German and French (may be others that I don't have).

If people are interested in films of the thirties that feature Arsenal there is actually an earlier one that gets ignored but features some great clips of Highbury http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023165/

Edit - Italian not German.

_________________Oh, to capture just one drop of all the ecstasy that swept that afternoon.

I'm sure you must have seen the film. What do you think of it? Allison had a talking part in it.

As a film it is nothing amazing but a good solid detective movie of the age - really it is the clips of Arsenal that make it special otherwise it may have been forgotten, like many films of that period.

The book was rather popular going into various re-prints (then slightly re-written to include post-war players and released as Arsenal Stadium Mystery - the Replay). There was a Guild Services version for soldiers during the war and it was also reprinted in both German and French (may be others that I don't have).

If people are interested in films of the thirties that feature Arsenal there is actually an earlier one that gets ignored but features some great clips of Highbury http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023165/

Edit - Italian not German.

I agree, it wasn't anything amazing. I didn't watch the whole film for that reason. I did see George Allison's speaking scene, although for all I know maybe he had more than one and I missed the other or others through my giving up watching it. I just looked him up, yes on Wikipedia. I didn't realise he was originally from Teesside. When I saw him talk on the film, I didn't notice a north-east accent.

Hi Bernard, Arsenal included a dvd of that movie a while back in the membership pack. It was pretty standard fare for movies of the age. I enjoyed the shots of the stadium but I think they missed an opportunity to really show it off a bit more. There's still some interesting scenes from an Arsenal historical point of view.

Ex thanks for the recommendation, never heard of that one but I'd be interested to see the Arsenal related footage...if that movie can still be found.

Hi Bernard, Arsenal included a dvd of that movie a while back in the membership pack. It was pretty standard fare for movies of the age. I enjoyed the shots of the stadium but I think they missed an opportunity to really show it off a bit more. There's still some interesting scenes from an Arsenal historical point of view.

Ex thanks for the recommendation, never heard of that one but I'd be interested to see the Arsenal related footage...if that movie can still be found.

Hi Bernard, Arsenal included a dvd of that movie a while back in the membership pack. It was pretty standard fare for movies of the age. I enjoyed the shots of the stadium but I think they missed an opportunity to really show it off a bit more. There's still some interesting scenes from an Arsenal historical point of view.

Ex thanks for the recommendation, never heard of that one but I'd be interested to see the Arsenal related footage...if that movie can still be found.

It's out of copyright so whilst it may be difficult to get a legit copy they often turn up on ebay for a few quid. If you can't get it give me a shout and I'll do you a copy*.

Haven't watched it in years but from memory it's the early and late part of the film that feature Highbury. The actual story is about a lottery ticket and the guy trying to get back to London from France to get it cashed after running away.

* Give it to Jr and ask him to copy it for me.

_________________Oh, to capture just one drop of all the ecstasy that swept that afternoon.